gONEST  GOVERNMENT 


(]IGBNTIC  CORRUPTION 


whueoh:  ? 


BLAINE’S  RECORD- MULLIGAN  LETTERS- PAC  1  F  I  C 
RAILROADS— THURMAN  FUND¬ 
ING  BILL,  &c. 


By  CHAS.  S.  WALLER, 
CHICAGO,  ILL. 


\ 


Jameson  &  Morse, 


CHICAGO  : 
Peinters,  162-4 


Clark  Street. 


1884. 


0  J 


4  Honest  Government  or  Gigantic  Corruption, 
?  Which  ? 


BLAINE’S  RECORD— MULLIGAN  LETTERS— PACIFIC  RAIL¬ 
ROADS— THURMAN  FUNDING  BILL,  &c. 


BY  CHARLES  S,  WALLER. 

Although  partisan  newspapers  and  professional  politicians  are 
active  in  trying  to  conceal  the  fact,  and  the  strong  prejudices  and 
blinding  influences  of  party  zeal  may  keep  many  good  men  from  see¬ 
ing  it,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  the  one  important  and  vital  question 
in  the  present  presidential  canvass  is  that  of  official  honesty,  obedience 
to  law,  and  fidelity  to  the  people,  as  against  official  dishonesty,  disre¬ 
gard  for  law,  and  a  persistent  and  insidious  robbery  of  the  people. 
The  bold  and  unscrupulous  use  of  money  to  control  the  votes  of  the 
people’s  representatives,  and  the  actions  of  men  in  office  to  whom  are 
committed  important  trusts,  have  grown  to  be  an  evil  of  such  colossal 
proportions  as  to  endanger  not  only  the  prosperity,  but  the  liberties,  of 
the  people.  It  is  slowly  yet  surely  sapping  the  foundations  of  our 
government,  destroying  all  regard  for  official  integrity  and  public 
virtue ;  and  unless  summarily  dealt  with  and  overthrown  must  result 
in  .great  disaster  and  infamy  to  the  whole  nation. 

Heretofore  capital  in  the  hands  of  corrupt  men  has  been  con- 
^  tented  with  the  purchase  of  legislators, — municipal,  state  and  national, 
— for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  exclusive  privileges,  and  of  setting  up 
vast  money-making  monopolies,  but  now,  growing  bolder  by  suc¬ 
cess,  our  money  kings  aspire  to  the  control  of  the  government  itself; 
and  we  have  the  startling  danger  confronting  us  of  the  unchecked 
~  corruption  and  grinding  power  of  such  an  oligarchy,  through  the 
nominal  presidency  of  their  chosen,  long-tried,  and  ever-faithful  serv¬ 
ant,  James  G.  Blaine. 

I  propose  to  show  in  this  paper,  to  those  who  desire  to  know  the 
truth,  such  facts  as  will  clearly  uphold  the  foregoing  premises,  and 
make  apparent  to  all  good  men  the  extreme  danger  to  the  country 
which  underlies  the  election  of  Mr.  Blaine.  The  threatened  danger  is 
from  the  great  stock- jobbing,  railroad-manipulating  monopolists  of  the 
country,  to  whom  Mr.  Blaine  has  always  been  subservient,  and  who 
hold  such  overwhelming  proofs  of  his  venality  and  oft-repeated  acts  of 
treachery  to  the  people  that  he  dares  not  now  refuse  to  do  the  bidding 
of  those  to  whom  he  has  thus  irrevocably  committed  himself. 

P 23743 


2 


In  regard  to  the  famous  “  Mulligan  letters,  ”  the  exposures  they 
give  have  been  extensively  ventilated  by  the  newspapers,  and  have 
been  commented  upon  with  masterly  ability  and  convincingness  by 
Mr.  Carl  Schurz  in  his  great  speech  in  the  opera-house  at  Brooklyn. 
I  do  not  think  it  necessary,  therefore,  to  dwell  on  this  part  of  Mr. 
Blaine’s  record,  except  to  show  in  passing  that  his  actions  throughout 
in  this  matter  are  in  themselves  irresistible  proofs  of  his  guilt.  Integ¬ 
rity  and  concealment  are  not  bosom  friends,  and  conscious  innocence 
does  not  resort  to  falsehood. 

At  the  time  Mr.  Blaine  pretended  to  read  these  letters  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  he  said:  “I  have  now  read  those  fifteen 
letters,  the  whole  of  them.  The  House  and  the  country  now  know  all 
there  is  in  them.  They  are  dated,  and  they  correspond  precisely  with 
Mulligan’s  memorandum,  which  I  have  here.”  Now,  a  comparison  of 
the  two  lists  shows  that  they  do  not  so  correspond,  as  anyone  who  will 
examine  for  himself  will  see.  Several  letters  were  read  that  were  not 
in  the  Mulligan  package,  as  shown  by  the  memorandum.  Why  did 
Mr.  Blaine  add  these?  Several  letters  were  omitted  to  be  read  that 
are  listed  in  the  memorandum.  Why  did  Mr.  Blaine  suppress  these? 
The  inference  is  very  plain. 

Mr.  Hunton,  the  chairman  of  the  sub-committee  before  whom 
Mulligan  appeared  as  a  witness,  stated  in  his  speech  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  that  Mulligan  testified  that  Blaine,  in  his  effort  to  get 
these  letters  from  him,  said,  “with  tears  in  his  eyes,  almost  if  not 
quite  on  his  knees,  Tf  you  do  not  deliver  those  letters  to  me  I  am 
ruined  and  my  family  disgraced’;”  that  he  also  threatened  to  commit 
suicide;  that  Mulligan  refused  to  give  up  the  letters,  replying:  “Mr. 
Blaine,  I  see  by  the  evening  paper  that  my  testimony  given  to  the 
committee  to-day  is  to  be  impugned,  and  in  case  my  character  and 
testimony  are  assailed,  I  want  these  letters  to  justify  me  in  my  testi¬ 
mony  before  the  committee;”  that  Mr.  Blaine  asked,  “Do  you  suppose 
I  am  going  to  assail  you?”  and  that  Mulligan  replied:  “If  you  do  not 
assail  me,  others  may,  and  my  character  is  too  dear  to  me  not  to  vin¬ 
dicate  it  if  I  can.”  That  Mr.  Blaine  then  tried  politics  with  him,  and 
asked  Mulligan:  “Are  you  content  with  your  station?”  to  which 
Mulligan  replied  that  he  would  like  to  improve  it  if  he  could.  Mr. 
Blaine  said:  “Would  you  like  a  political  office?”  Mulligan  replied 
that  he  did  not  like  politics,  and  did  not  care  about  it.  Mr.  Blaine 
then  asked  how  he  would  like  a  foreign  consulship.  Mulligan  said  he 
would  not  like  it.  And  after  that  Mr.  Blaine  said:  “Let  me  see  the 
letters  to  peruse  them,”  etc.  Mr.  Hunton  said  in  his  speech  that 
Mulligan  “  was  a  witness  summoned  from  Boston ;  he  did  not  appear 
as  a  volunteer  in  the  case ;  he  came  under  the  compulsory  process  of 
the  house.”  ( Congressional  Record ,  Yol.  IV.,  part  4,  Forty-fourth  Con¬ 
gress,  first  session,  pages  3,611,  3,612.)  The  first  impulse  of  an 
innocent  man  would  have  been  to  impeach  the  testimony  of  Mulligan. 


3 


Blaine’s  honor  required  this.  Nothing  short  of  it  could  possibly  keep 
the  stigma  of  guilt  from  resting  on  him.  If  Mulligan  spoke  the  truth, 
Blaine  was  guilty.  This  is  undeniable.  If  he  did  not  speak  the  truth, 
then  why  did  not  Blaine  impeach  his  testimony?  There  was  no  other 
possible  way  of  clearing  himself.  He  did  not  impeach  the  testimony 
of  Mulligan  because  he  could  not — he  knew  it  to  be  true ;  this  is  mani¬ 
fest.  There  was  no  escape ,  therefore ,  from  conviction  and  permanent  disgrace 
if  the  committee  proceeded  with  its  investigations.  To  prevent  this  the 
opportune  “sunstroke”  (so  called)  appealed  to  their  humanity  for 
postponement.  This  delayed  action  until  the  session  of  Congress,  then 
near  its  close,  terminated  (as  was  easy  to  foresee),  and  thus  further 
investigation  was  postponed  until  the  next  session  of  Congress.  That 
the  position  of  Mr.  Blaine  was  such  that  he  could  not  meet  any  further 
investigation  and  remain  unconvicted  is  apparent.  And  to  avoid  this  in 
future  he  must  get  out  of  the  House  of  Representatives ,  which  he  did,  and 
has  never  returned.  His  actions  throughout  show  a  consciousness  of 
guilt,  as  reliable  and  certain  in  determining  the  fact  as  actual  confes¬ 
sion.  Properly  weighed  they  are  confession ;  there  is  positively  no 
escape  from  this  conclusion. 

But  there  are  other  railroad  channels  in  which  Mr.  Blaine  found 
opportunities  to  be  useful  besides  the  Caldwell  transactions — channels 
which  have  been  more  profitable  to  Mr.  Blaine,  and  the  understanding 
of  which  is  of  more  importance  to  the  people,  because  of  the  deeper 
and  more  permanent  injury  they  have  done  them.  I  refer  to  his  con¬ 
nection  with 

THE  PACIFIC  RAILROADS. 

The  history,  of  these  corporations  shows  them  to  be  the  boldest 
and  most  powerful  for  evil,  and  therefore  the  most  dangerous,  which 
this  country  has  ever  seen. 

Indeed,  there  is  no  parallel  in  history  to  the  haughtiness,  the 
overshadowing  power,  the  reckless  seizure  of  millions  upon  millions  of 
dollars,  the  startling  corruptions,  and  the  utter  disregard  of  lq,w,  of 
honesty,  and  of  public  sentiment,  which  characterized  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  these  companies,  as  shown  by  Congressional  investigations, 
unless  it  be  the  atrocious  acts  of  the  British  East  India  Company 
under  the  heartless  and  mercenary  rule  of  Lord  Clive  and  of  Warren 
Hastings'.  The  robbery,  however,  in  the  one  case,  was  of  our  own 
people,  while,  in  the  other,  it  was  of  a  ‘distant  heathen  nation. 

It  is  a  pity  that  the  whole  history  of  these  iniquitous  transactions, 
the  reports  of  Congressional  committees,  and  the  debates  thereon,  have 
not  been  copied  in  extenso  from  The  Congressional  Record,  and  published 
in  a  book,  for  the  information  of  the  people,  that  all  might  see  the 
growing  evil  of  the  times,  the  overshadowing  danger  to  our  free  insti¬ 
tutions,  in  the  dishonest  accumulation  of  vast  sums  of  money,  wrung 
from  the  people  through  the  connivance  and  partnership  of  their 
trusted  yet  false  representatives. 


4 


I  deem  it  of  such  great  importance  in  the  present  issue  that  the 
leading  facts  here  referred  to  should  be  remembered  at  this  time,  that 
at  the  risk  of  being  tedious  I  will  present  some  of  them  in  as  con¬ 
densed  a  form  as  I  can. 

These  roads  (embracing  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  and  the  Cen¬ 
tral  &  Western  Pacific  Railroad),  were  incorporated  by  act  of  Con¬ 
gress,  in  1862.  A  loan  from  the  Government,  of  $55,000,000  of  United 
States  bonds,  payable  in  thirty  years,  was  made  to  said  companies,  to 
assist  in  the  construction  of  said  roads,  besides  a  grant  of  alternate 
sections  of  government  land  of  five  miles  on  each  side  of  the  road,  ex¬ 
cluding  mineral  and  coal  lands.  By  the  act  of  1862  the  Government 
held,  for  security  on  its  loan,  a  mortgage  “  on  the  whole  line  of  the 
railroad  and  telegraph,  together  with  the  rolling-stock,  fixtures,  and 
property  of  every  kind  and  description,  and  in  consideration  of  which 
said  bonds  may  be  issued.” 

This  mortgage  would  have  about  protected  the  Government  in  its 
loan,  being  $27,500  per  mile  on  the  two  thousand  miles  of  road. 

In  1864  an  act  of  Congress  was  obtained  allowing  these  com¬ 
panies  to  issue  $55,000,000  of  bonds  of  their  own,  and  give  a  first 
mortgage  on  said  roads,  to  insure  the  sale  of  said  bonds  and 
their  repayment,  while  the  Government  consented  to  give  up  the 
first  and  take  a  second  mortgage  (on  its  own  property,  really,  for  its 
bonds  and  lands  more  than  paid  for  it  all),  to  secure  the  heavy  loan  it 
had  made.  In  addition  to  this,  the  land  grants  to  said  roads  were 
doubled — ten  miles  on  each  side  being  given — and  valuable  coal  lands 
having  in  the  meantime  been  discovered,  the  clause  in  the  act  of  1862, 
reserving  mineral  and  coal  lands  to  the  Government,  was  repealed. 
In  all  the  annals  of  Congress  a  more  unwise  and  iniquitous  bill  than 
this  act  of  1864  has  never  been  passed.  Of  course  it  was  brought 
about  by  the  boldest  lobby  influences,  and  stupendous  corruption,  the 
extent  and  effect  of  which  will  be  shown  further  on  in  this  paper.  On 
the  passage  of  this  infamous  bill 

THE  HON.  E.  B.  WASHBURNE, 

of  Illinois,  whose  grand,  life-long  record  of  unbending  and  unimpeach¬ 
able  integrity  is  admitted  by  all,  said  in  his  speech  in  opposition  to  it: 

“  We  donated  millions  upon  millions  of  the  public  lands  to  this  company, 
and  advanced  them  our  bonds,  and  if  Congress  had  required  less,  than  a  first 
mortgage  it  would,  in  my  judgment,  have  been  derelict  in  its  duty.  What  is 
it  now  proposed  to  do  ?  I  demand  that  gentlemen  shall  look  at  it.  Nothing 
less  than  that  the  Government,  with  its  liability  of  a  hundred  millions,  shall 
relinquish  its  first  mortgage  and  subordinate  its  lien  to  the  liens  of  all  the 
companies  created  for  building  the  road  (composed  of  the  same  persons  whose 
obligations  the  bill  proposes  to  release).  It  is  to  subordinate  the  Government 
to  its  own  interests,  raise  money  on  the  means  the  Government  has  furnished, 
give  a  first  mortgage  for  the  security  of  that  money,  and  have  the  furnisher 
of  that  security,  as  a  second  mortgagee,  obliged  to  pay  off  the  first  mortgage 
before  it  can  be  in  a  position  to  take  advantage  of  any  security  there  might 
possibly  be  in  a  second  mortgage.  Sir,  on  my  responsibility  as  a  representa¬ 
tive,  I  pronounce  this  the  most  monstrous  and  flagrant  attempt  to  overreach 
the  Government  and  the  people  that  can  be  found  in  the  legislative  annals  of 
the  countiy.  *  *  *  I  warn  Congress  and  the  people  of  what  will 

be  the  result.  ” 


5 


And  yet  the  bill  passed;  there  were  “  millions  in  it.”  Mr.  Blaine 
voted  for  it,  and  worked  for  it. 

In  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  is  to  be  found  the  record  of  a 
suit  on  appeal  from  the  Federal  Circuit  Court  for  Kansas,  brought  by 
Joseph  B.  Stewart  against  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  in  the 
year  1868,  for  his  services  as  a  lobbyist  and  agent.  This  suit  was 
preceded  by  a  statement  of  the  claim  on  which  it  was  founded,  con¬ 
tained  in  a  letter  from  Stewart  to  Perry  (the  President  of  the  Com¬ 
pany),  dated  April  23,  1868,  in  which  he  says : 

“In  compliance  with  your  request,  I  will  state  that  the  total  claims  on  me 
for  any  portion  of  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  (Eastern  Division)  Construction 
Bonds,  are  as  follows  : 


Thomas  Ewing,  Jr . 10 

-  Blaine . 15 

C.  T.  Sherman . 20 

H.  G.  Grant .  . . : .  4 

J.  P.  Usher .  5 

W.  J.  Keeler .  5 

Total . 59 


I  have  settled  with  all  the  other  parties.  The  three  last  named  are  to  be  paid 
in  full,  as  per  orders.  These  were  stipulated  to  be  paid  since  the  agreement 
of  the  6th  of  January,  1866,  and  are  for  distinct  and  specific  considerations, 
.  But  the  Ewing  10,  Blaine  15,  and  Sherman  20,  are  all  subject  to  the 
amount  of  deduction  (about  20  per  cent.)  agreed  on  between  Mr.  Durant  and 
myself,  before  and  at  the  time  he  ratified  the  settlement  of  6th  of  January, 
1866.  I  must  then  pay  .  .  .  Ewing  10,  Blaine  15,  Sherman  20.” 

Thomas  A.  Greene,  of  St.  Joseph,  Mo.,  who  had  been  Stewart’s 
attorney  in  the  Kansas  suit,  was  called  as  a  witness  June  7,  1876, 
three  days  before  the  adjournment  of  the  House  Committee  of  the 
Judiciary,  which  partially  investigated  Mr.  Blaine’s  transactions  with 
the  Fort  Smith  &  Little  Rock  and  the  Northern  Pacific  Railroad  Com¬ 
panies,  to  testify  before  said  committee.  Shocked,  as  they  must  have 
been,  by  the  public  disclosure  of  the  facts  resulting  from  the  institu¬ 
tion  of  this  suit,  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  the  Union  Pacific  R.  R. 
Company  would  make  every  effort,  and  resort  to  any  device  possible  to 
shield  the  company  from  the  imputed  crime  of  having  bribed  a  Con¬ 
gressman  and  Speaker  of  the  House,  and  that  in  this,  the  Speaker 
himself,  would  play  an  active  part.  This  was  attempted,  by  an  effort 

to  show  that  the  “ - Blaine”  referred  to  in  the  copy  of  Stewart’s 

letter  filed  in  his  suit,  was  not  James  G.  Blaine,  but  his  brother  John 
E.  Blaine.  To  this  end  an  old  power  of  attorney  was  produced,  signed 
by  the  Speaker’s  brother  John  to  Stewart  dated  19th  May,  1863,  in 
which  his  brother  says  “that  Stewart  is  fully  empowered  and  author¬ 
ized  by  me  to  settle  my  claims  against  the  Leavenworth,  Pawnee  & 
Western  Railroad  Company,  bearing  date  May  3d,  1862.”  What  had 
such  “ claims ”  of  his  brother,  of  that  date ,  to  do  with  the  fifteen  ($1,000) 

“construction  bonds”  due  to  “ - Blaine,”  which  were  the  subject  of 

“the  settlement  of  the  6th  of  January ,  1866,”  referred  to  in  the  above 
letter  of  Stewart  to  Perry?  If  John  E.  Blaine  was  meant  in  Stew¬ 
art’s  list  furnished  Perry,  why  would  Stewart  write  it  “ - Blaine,” 


6 


if  he  had  a  power  of  attorney  covering  this  identical  claim  signed 
John  E.  Blaine  ?  Another  instrument  was  produced,  the  result  of 
a  negotiation  between  Stewart  and  J.  P.  Usher,  counsel  for  the 
Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  dated  October  3d,  1871,  in  which, 
between  them ,  it  was  “agreed  in  this  case  that  John  E.  Blaine  was 
the  holder  of  the  bonds  described  in  the  pleadings  in  the  cause  as 
the  construction  bonds  of  the  defendant ”  (to  wit,  the  Union  Pacific 
R.  R.  Co.),  that  “said  Blaine  was  the  holder  of  the  construction  bonds 
aforesaid  in  1864.”  This  does  not  say  that  these  were  what  John 
called  “???,y  claims ,  bearing  date  May  3,  1862,”  in  said  power  of  attorney, 
but  says  that  he  was  the  “holder”  (does  not  say  owner)  of  said  bonds. 
The  banks — made  parties  in  this  suit — were  also  “holders”  of  some  of 
these  bonds,  but  not  owners.  For  the  weight  and  character  of  such 
proof  the  whole  of  the  testimony  of  said  Thomas  A.  Greene  before  the 
Committee  of  the  Judiciary,  in  June,  1876,  is  referred  to.  In  a  part 
of  this  testimony,  Mr.  Greene  says : 

“As  a  lawyer  on  the  examination  of  the  record,  I  was  very  much  afraid 
of  the  defense,  that  it  was  an  immoral  contract.  *  *  I  consulted  Mr. 

Joseph  B.  Stewart,  and  said  to  him  I  was  afraid  of  that  point,  and  that  I  did 
not  like  the  looks  of  Mr.  Blaine’s  name  connected  with  the  case.”  *  * 

“My  statement  was,  I  did  not  like  the  looks  of  Congressman  Blaine  connected 
with  the  case.  ”  *  *  “  The  conversation  took  place  while  Mr.  Blaine  was 

in  Congress.”  *  *  “He  (Stewart)  never  denied  that  Congressman  Blaine 

was  connected  with  it.  ” 

Question  by  Mr.  Hale — “Did  he  intimate  that  he  was  connected  with  it?” 

Answer — “He  did  not.” 

The  point  which  gave  Mr.  Greene  uneasiness,  as  quoted  above, 
was  the  immorality  (in  other  words  criminality)  in  the  case,  growing  out 
of  “Congressman  Blaine’s”  connection  with  it.  This  would  involve 
Stewart  as  well  as  Blaine,  if  acknowledged  by  him.  Stewart  was 
therefore  silent  on  this  point,  neither  admitting  nor  denying  it.  He 
certainly  would  have  denied  it  however,  when  Greene  raised  the  point 
with  him,  and  stated  his  fears  concerning  it,  if  he  could  have  done  so 
truthfully.  In  the  same  testimony,  in  reply  to  a  question  of  Mr.  Hunton, 
as  to  whether  Stewart,  “in  speaking  of  the  Hon.  Mr.  Blaine,  did  he  ever 
say  James  G.  Blaine  or  James  Blaine?”  the  witness  replied: 

“Mr.  Stewart  always  spoke  of  him  as  the  Hon.  James  Blaine,  I  always 
spoke  of  him  as  Congressman  Blaine,  and  as  Speaker  Blaine,  after  he  was 
Speaker  of  the  House,  I  never  used  his  first  name.  On  page  66,  of  Stewart’s 
printed  book  of  depositions,  he  speaks  as  follows:  I  further  state,  as  in  direct 
examination,  that  the  President  (of  the  Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Company)  and  its 
counsel,  the  Hon.  John  P.  Usher,  have  both  repeatedly  stated  to  me 
that  I  was  entitled  to  my  bonds,  and  ought  to  receive  them.  .  .  .  Among 

others,  I  am  informed  and  believe  that  Mr.  Usher  made  that  statement  to  Mr. 
Alexander  Hay  and  the  Hon.  James  Blaine  in  Washington.  ” 

Why  was  Mr.  James  G.  Blaine  talking  to  Usher  about  these  bonds ? 
and  how  did  Stewart  probably  learn  that  Usher  had  admitted  to  Blaine 
(and  Hay)  that  he  (Stewart)  “  was  entitled  to  the  bonds ,  and  ought  to 

receive  them?” 

The  Mulligan  letters  show  what  an  active  business  man  Mr. 
Blaine  is,  and  that  he  leaves  “no  stone  unturned”  in  carrying  out  his 
business  arrangements  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion. 

This  investigation,  with  such  testimony  before  it,  had  to  be  aban¬ 
doned  by  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House,  because  in  the  midst 


7 


of  it  Mr.  Blaine  fled  from  the  House  to  the  Senate,  and  thereby  escaped 
from  its  jurisdiction. 

In  regard  to  the  item  in  Stewart’s  list  to  Perry,  of  “ - Blaine, 

15”  (no  other  name  in  the  list  being  given  in  blank  as  will  be  observed), 
the  New  York  Herald ,  of  August  21st,  1884,  after  giving  lengthy  ex¬ 
tracts  from  the  testimony  taken  in  this  case,  says: 

“The  first  transcript  of  the  Kansas  court  record  sent  to  Washington  con¬ 
tained  a  letter  from  Stewart  to  John  D.  Perry,  the  President  of  the  Railroad 
Company,  dated  April  23,  1868,  setting  forth  that  among  other  unsettled 
claims  upon  him  for  construction  bonds  was  one  of  “James  Blaine”  for  “fifteen 
bonds.”  When  the  case  was  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  record  arrived  in  Washington,  it  was  found  that  the  word 
“James”  had  been  omitted  from  this  portion  of  the  certified  record,  and  that 

it  was  written  instead,  “ - Blaine,  fifteen  bonds.”  A  search  of  the  records 

in  Topeka  showed  that  the  official  copy  of  the  original  letter  of  Stewart  to 
Perry  had  been  abstracted  from  the  files  and  one  put  in  its  place,  which,  in¬ 
stead  of  “James  Blaine,”  read  “blank  Blaine.”  *  *  It  further  appeared 

from  the  record,  that  after  the  case  had  been  pending  before  the  Master  and 
the  Court  for  some  five  years,  that  Stewart  on  the  11th  of  December,  1873, 
asked  for  and  obtained  an  order  on  John  D.  Perry  directing  him  to  produce 
the  original  of  the  Stewart  letter  of  April  23,  1868.  This  order  was  complied 
with  and  the  letter  was  produced  in  court  and  examined,  proved  to  agree  with 
the  first  transcript  forwarded  unofficially  to  Washington,  the  blank  reading 
“James,”  and  the  entry  showed  fifteen  construction  bonds  of  the  road  set  op¬ 
posite  the  name  of 11  James  Blaine .” 

The  claims  on  Stewart ,  as  reported  by  him  to  President  Perry, 
were  for  “  construction  bonds ”  of  the  Union  Pacific  Eailroad  Company , 
and  he  states  in  this  report  to  his  principal,  that  “ - Blaine ”  is  en¬ 

titled  to  fifteen  of  these  construction  bonds ,  as  agreed  between  Mr.  Durant 
and  myself  (Stewart)  before  and  at  the  time  he  ratified  the  settlement 
of  6th  of  January,  1866.”  These  claims  Stewart  says  in  his  letter  are 
“ on  mefi  but  those  in  the  power  of  attorney  are  stated  to  be  on  the 
Leavenworth  Co. 

The  reader  will  find  some  interesting  official  showings  concerning 
this  Mr.  Durant  and  his  connection  with  the  construction  of  this  road, 
immediately  following  in  this  pamphlet. 

DUB  ANT - stewart - BLAINE. 

Stewart  the  link  between — that’s  enough. 

The  foregoing  gives  us  a  sad  and  mortifying  insight  into  the 
influences  which  were  brought  to  bear  in  the  passage  of  this  iniquitous 
act  of  1864,  which  resulted  in  such  a  startling  and  gigantic  robbery  of 
the  people,  as  the  evidence  which  I  will  now  present  clearly  shows.  I 
quote  from  The  Congressional  Record ,  volume  7,  part  3,  Forty-fifth  Con¬ 
gress,  from  March  to  May,  1878,  and  the  pages  here  given  as  reference 
will  be  found  in  said  volume.  In  a  report  made  to  the  House  of  Rep¬ 
resentatives,  by  the  Judiciary  Committee,  on  the  subject  of  a  sinking 
fund  for  the  Railroad  Companies,  made  to  the  Forty-fourth  Congress, 
first  session,  referring  to  the  construction  of  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad, 
this  committee  says: 

“  The  first  contract  for  the  construction  of  the  road  was  made  with  one 
H.  M.  Hoxie,  who  seems  to  have  been  a  person  of  little  pecuniary  responsi¬ 
bility.  His  proposal  to  build  and  equip  one  hundred  miles  of  the  railroad  and 
telegraph  is  dated  New  York,  August  8,  1864,  signed  H.  M.  Hoxie,  by  H.  C. 


8 


Crane,  attorney.  It  was  accepted  by  the  company  September  23,  1864.  On 
the  30th  of  September,  1864,  Hoxie  agreed  to  assign  this  contract  to  Thomas 
C.  Durant,  who  was  then  Vice-President  of  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  com¬ 
pany,  or  such  parties  as  he  might  designate.  On  October  4, 1864,  this  contract 
was  extended  to  the  100th  meridian,  an  additional  146  45-100  miles,  the  agree¬ 
ment  for  extension  being  signed  by  Crane,  as  attorney  of  Hoxie.  Hoxie  was 
an  employe  of  the  company  at  the  time,  and  Mr.  Crane,  who  signed  as  Mr. 
Hoxie’s  attorney,  was  Durant’s  ‘  confidential  man,’  as  Durant  himself  expresses 
it.  On  the  11th  day  of  October,  1864,  an  agreement  was  entered  into  by  Du¬ 
rant,  Bushnell,  Lombard,  McComb,  all  directors  of  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad 
company,  and  Gray,  a  stockholder,  to  take  from  Hoxie  the  assignment  of  his 
contract,  which  assignment  he  had  previously  bound  himself  to  make  to  such 
person  as  Durant  should  designate.  *  *  *  This  Hoxie  contract 

and  its  assignment  were  a  device  by  which  the  persons  who  were  the  active 
managers  and  controllers  of  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company  caused  said 
corporation  to  make  a  contract  with  themselves  for  the  construction  of  a  por¬ 
tion  of  its  road,  by  which,  also,  they  got  possession  of  all  the  resources  which 
it  would  be  entitled  to  by  the  completion  of  said  portion,  and  by  which  they 
evaded,  or  sought  to  evade,  the  requirement  that  the  capital  stock  should  be 
fully  paid  in  in  money,  by  substituting  for  such  payment  a  fictitious  or  nom¬ 
inal  payment  in  road-building  and  equipment,  each  share  being  treated  as 
being  worth  much  less  than  its  par  value.” 

The  report  continues: 

“  The  Hoxie  contract  had  been  completed,  finishing  the  road  to  the  100th 
meridian,  a  distance  of  146  45-100  miles.  An  agreement  was  then  made,  No¬ 
vember  10,  1866,  by  Thomas  Durant,  vice-president  of  the  Union  Pacific  Rail¬ 
road  company,  with  a  Mr.  Boomer,  for  the  construction  of  153  35-100  miles 
west  from  the  100th  meridian.  By  the  terms  of  this  agreement  Boomer  was 
to  be  paid  $19,500  per  mile  for  that  portion  between  the  100th  meridian  and  the 
east  bank  of  the  North  Platte,  and  for  that  portion  lying  west  of  the  North 
Platte,  within  the  limits  of  the  agreement,  $20,000  per  mile,  the  bridge  over 
the  North  Platte,  and  station  buildings,  equipments,  etc.,  to  be  an  additional 
charge.  This  contract  was  never  ratified  by  the  company,  but  under  it  the 
work  progressed,  and  fifty-eight  miles  of  road  had  been  completed  and  ac¬ 
cepted  by  the  Government.  The  books  of  the  company  failed  to  show  what 
this  fifty- eight  miles  had  cost  the  company,  but  from  the  best  evidence  that 
could  be  procured,  your  committee  believed  that  the  cost  had  not  been  to 
exceed  $27,500  per  mile  for  construction  and  equipment,  the  excess  over  the 
contract  price  being  for  station-houses,  etc.,  inasmuch  as  the  charter  required 
that  the  station-houses,  etc.,  should  be  built  and  furnished  before  acceptance 
by  the  Government ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  records  of  the  department  show 
that  the  fifty-eight  miles  had  been  accepted,  your  committee  feel  warranted  in 
finding  that  this  had  been  done,  and  that  the  cost  of  the  whole  was  not  to  ex¬ 
ceed  $27,500  per  mile  ;  but,  notwithstanding  this,  on  the  5th  day  of  January, 
1867,  the  board  of  directors,  by  a  resolution,  extended  the  Hoxie  contract  over 
this  fifty-eight  miles  of  then  completed  road,  thereby  proposing  to  pay  to  the 
Credit  Mobilier  the  sum  of  $22,500  per  mile  for  this  fifty -eight  miles — amount¬ 
ing  to  the  sum  of  $1,345,000 — without  any  consideration  whatever.  The  fol¬ 
lowing  is  the  resolution : 

“  Resolved,  That  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company  will,  and  do  hereby 
consider  the  Hoxie  contract  extended  to  the  point  already  completed — namely, 
305  miles  west  from  Omaha— and  that  the  officers  of  this  company  are  hereby 
authorized  to  settle  with  the  Credit  Mobilier  at  $50,000  per  mile  for  the  addi¬ 
tional  fifty-eight  miles.” 

In  the  same  report,  at  page  13,  is  the  following  concerning  the  Oakes 
Ames  contract : 

This  contract  extending  over  138  miles  of  road  completed  and  accepted. 
No  work  was  done  under  it  until  after  its  assignment.  That  portion  already 
completed  had  cost  not  to  exceed  $27,500  per  mile,  and  by  embracing  this  138 
miles  in  it  these  trustees  derived  a  “profit,”  if  such  a  term  is  admissible  in 
such  a  connection,  which  enabled  them  to  make  a  dividend  among  the  stock¬ 
holders  in  less  than  sixty  days  after  the  assignment — namely,  on  the  12th  of 
September,  1867,  as  follows:  Sixty  per  cent,  in  First  Mortgage  Bonds  of  the 
Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  $2,244,000;  60  per  cent,  in  stock  of  the 
Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  $2,244,000.  This  was  mainly,  if  not  entirely, 
derived  from  the  excess  of  the  contract  price  over  what  the  138  miles  had  cost. 
The  trustees  proceeded  to  construct  the  road  under  this  contract,  and  from  a 


9 


balance-sheet,  taken  from  the  books,  it  appears  that  the  cost  to  the  railroad 
company  was  $57,140,102.74,  and  the  cost  to  the  contractors  was  $27,285,- 
950.75— profit,  $29,854,141.90. 

In  the  same  report  may  be  found  the  following  account  of  the 
Davis  contract: 

“This  was  a  contract  made  with  G.  W.  Davis,  a  man  of  but  little,  if  any, 
pecuniary  ability,  and  not  expected  to  perform  the  contract,  for  the  construc- 
•  tion  of  that  part  of  the  road  beginning  at  the  western  terminus  of  the  ‘  Ames 

Contract,’  and  extending  to  the  western  terminus  of  the  road — a  distance  of 
125  23-100  miles.  It  was  upon  the  same  terms  as  the  Ames  contract,  and  was 
assigned  to  the  same  board  of  trustees.  Under  it  the  residue  of  the  road  was 
j  constructed,  and  from  a  balance-sheet  taken  from  the  books  of  the  railroad 

company  it  appears  that  it  cost  the  railroad  company  $23,431,768.10;  and  from 
a  balance-sheet  taken  from  the  books  of  the  trustees,  that  it  cost  the  con¬ 
tractors  $15,629,933.62 — profit,  $7,802,084.48.” 

Your  Committee  present  the  following  summary  of  cost  of  this  road  to  the 
railroad  company  and  to  the  contractors : 

COST  TO  RAILROAD  COMPANY. 

Hoxie  contract . $12,974,416  24 

Ames  contract .  57,140,102  94 

Davis  contract .  23,431,768  10 

- $93,546,287  28 


Now  see  the  other  side  of  the  books: 

COST  TO  CONTRACTORS. 

$  7,806,183  33 
27,285.141  99 
15,629,633  62 

- $50,729,958  94 

Difference . $42,825,328  34 

To  which  should  be  added  amount  paid  Credit  Mobilier  on  account  of 
fifty-eight  miles  ($1,104,000),  making  total  profit  on  construction  $43,925,- 
328.34.  (See  Congressional  Record ,  pages  2,028  and  2,029). 

“  Profit  /”  How  very  accommodating  is  this  word  as  here  used. 
A  man  may  steal  a  horse  successfully,  and  carry  the  result  in  his 
mind,  or  even  enter  it  upon  his  private  memorandum-book  thus: 


One  horse,  value .  $200  00 

Cost  me .  000  00 

Profit*. . .  $200  00 


Let  us  examine  these  estimates  briefly,  which  I  have  been  com¬ 
pelled  to  quote  at  some  length,  in  order  that  the  enormity  of  these 
transactions  may  be  fully  understood'.  It  is  seen  by  the  committee’s 
report  that  these  railroad  directors,  with  all  their  amazing  boldness 
and  greed,  did  not  place  the  inflated  and  fictitious  cost  of  construction 
and  equipment  higher  than  $50,000  per  mile.  The  committee,  in 
their  report,  it  will  be  observed,  estimated  the  cost  for  a  portion  of  the 
road  at  $27,500  per  mile  for  “construction  and  equipment.”  Doubt¬ 
less  some  portions  of  the  road  cost  more  than  other  portions,  but, 
taking  the  directors’  own  excessive  figures,  $50,000  per  mile,  as  an 
average  (which  would  give  $100,000,  if  need  be,  for  the  most  difficult 


Hoxie  contract 
Ames  contract. . 
Davis  contract. 


10 


and  expensive  parts  of  the  road),  would  be  for  the  entire  two  thousand 
miles  $100,000,000.  To  pay  for  this  the  directors  had: 


United  States  Bonds  at  par . . $  55,000,000 

Their  own  first  mortgage  bonds  for  $55,000,000,  backed  by  all  the 

property,  must  have  been  cashed  at  nearly  par,  say .  50,000,000 

Stock,  which  the  law  required  should  be  paid  for  in  cash  at  par.  . .  90,000,000 

Land  bonds,  on  over  21,000,000  acres .  20,000,000 


Making . $215,000,000 

Entire  cost  by  the  above  excessive  estimate  of  $50,000  per  mile.  . .  100,000,000 

Profit  (so  called)  to  the  “  ring ” . . $115,000,000 


And  this  was  taken  from  the  people;  millions  upon  millions,  by 
mere  manipulations  and  trickery.  Senator  Booth,  of  California,  in 
his  speech  on  this  subject  in  the  Senate,  April  23,  1878,  said: 

“The  bonds  of  the  government  were  the  basis  of  the  credit  upon  which 
the  companies  were  enabled  to  place  their  first  mortgage  bonds.  These  two 
classes,  omitting  all  mention  of  the  land  bonds,  amount  to  $52,000  per  mile  to 
the  Union  Pacific,  and  $64,000  per  mile  to  the  Central  Pacific,  and  they  not 
only  built  the  road,  but  left  a  large  margin  of  profit,  aggregating  millions  of 
dollars.  The  36,000,000  of  stock  in  the  Union  Pacific  and  the  54,000,000  of 
stock  in  the  Central  Pacific  do  not  represent  money  paid  in.  If  it  had  been 
paid  in,  that,  with  the  land  bonds  alone,  would  have  built  the  road.  This 
90,000,000  of  stock,  claiming  dividends,  standing  between  the  companies  and 
their  obligations  to  the  government,  does  not  represent  one  dollar  nor  the 
phantom  of  a  dollar. 

“If  it  represents  anything,  it  is  simply  an  arbitrary  profit  upon  fraudu¬ 
lent  contracts.  The  assumption  that  it  is  actual  capital  is  a  bare,  naked 
assumption,  without  a  fig-leaf  covering  of  fact.”  ( C .  R.,  page  2,223.) 

Senator  Beck,  of  Kentucky,  on  the  same  subject,  said : 

“I  confess,  in  view  of  the  well-known  history  of  these  corporations,— their 
Credit  Mobiliers  and  construction  companies,  faise  statements  made  as  to  the 
cost  of  their  roads,  and  the  millions  of  spurious  stock,  on  which  vast  dividends 
are  regularly  paid,  which  represents  nothing  but  the  fraud  that  issued  it ;  the 
withholding  of  5  per  cent,  of  net  earnings  for  many  years  after  they  had  ob¬ 
tained  our  bonds  and  lands,  and  the  subterfuges  they  have  continually  resorted 
to  for  the  purpose  of  swindling  the  taxpayers  of  the  country,  from  whose  sweat 
and  toil  all  of  these  millions  have  been  wrung,  and  in  the  face  of  the  avowals 
that  they  intend  to  continue  to  take  all  and  save  nothing  to  enable  them  to  pay 
their  debts, — that  it  amazes  me  to  hear  that  the  effort  we  are  now  making  to 
save  something  for  the  people,  and  to  prevent  the  consummation  of  avowed 
frauds  and  breaches  of  contract,  even  when  congress  on  the  very  face  of  the 
contract  reserved  the  power  to  do  so,  is  a  wrong  and  an  outrage  on  the  rights 
of  these  companies.  I  have  long  thought  that  the  day  was  not  far  distant 
when  the  question  would  have  to  be  settled  whether  railroad  corporations 
controlled  congress  or  congress  regulated  them.  This  will  perhaps  be  a  test 
case;  we  could  not  have  a  better  one.” 

At  another  point  in  his  speech,  Senator  Beck  said : 

“Independent  of  the  postponement  of  our  vast  debt  to  a  private  debt,  we 
gave  them,  as  the  judiciary  committee  show  in  their  report,  coal  lands  alone, 
as  their  directors  say,  larger  than  all  the  anthracite  coal-fields  of  Pennsylvania. 
We  gave  them  21,100,000  acres  of  land,  or  over  33,000  square  miles,  more  terri¬ 
tory  than  is  contained  in  the  six  states  of  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire, 
Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  Jersey  and  Delaware,  all  of  this  vast  domain 
being  within  ten  miles  of  a  great  transcontinental  railroad.  More,  I  repeat, 
than  six  states  represented  by  twelve  senators  on  this  floor.  The  territory  is 
an  empire  of  itself,  and  if  these  railroads  are  allowed  now  to  defy  our  power, 
they  will  perhaps  in  a  few  years  have  more  than  twelve  senators  themselves.” 
(C.  R.,  page  2,142.) 

On  this  point  of  the  subject,  speaking  of  these  companies,  Senator 
Edmunds,  of  Vermont,  said : 


11 


“The  consolidation  of  its  stock  into  the  hands  of  three  or  four  great  oper¬ 
ators,  who  thus  become  the  kings  of  the  king,  and  rulers  of  the  corpora¬ 
tion,  and  so  the  rulers  of  all  that  section  of  the  country,  in  a  certain  sense,  over 
which  the  railroad  runs,  the  lords  paramount  of  every  hamlet,  and  every  city 
in  the  two  thousand  miles  that  stretch  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  Golden 
Gate.”  (C.  R.,  page  2,360.) 

In  a  report  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
j  sentatives,  made  to  the  Forty-fourth  Congress,  first  session,  at  page  20, 

will  be  found  the  following  striking  statement  concerning  the  Union 
Pacific  Railroad  Company : 

“That  the  moneys  borrowed  by  the  corporation  under  a  power  given  them 
^  only  to  meet  the  necessities  of  the  construction  and  endowment  of  the  road, 

have  been  distributed  in  dividends  among  the  corporators.  That  the  stock 
was  not  issued  to  men  who  paid  for  it  at  par  in  money,  but  who  paid  for  it  at 
not  more  than  30  cents  on  the  dollar  in  road-making,  and  that  there  has  been 
an  attempt  to  prevent  the  exercise  of  the  reserved  power  in  Congress  by  induc¬ 
ing  influential  members  of  Congress  to  become  interested  in  the  profits  of  the 
transaction .” 

(This  was  precisely  the  point  of  contest,  as  will  be  seen  hereafter, 
Blaine  attempting  to  tie  the  hands  of  Congress,  and  Thurman  and 
Edmunds  opposing  it.)  The  report  shows  that,  in  fact,  the  men  en¬ 
gaged  in  this  enterprise  never  risked  a  dollar  of  their  own  capital  by 
the  possibility  of  loss,  and  that  they  not  only  constructed  the  road  from 
the  resources  which  came  from  the  Government,  hut  that  they  made 
enormous  profits  from  these,  thereby  leaving  the  Government  with  no 
adequate  security  for  the  reimbursement  of  the  subsidy  bonds.  On 
page  14,  the  same  report  says: 

“These  companies  on  their  own  showing  are  making  large  profits,  and  are 
abundantly  able  to  pay  and  indemnify  the  Government  against  future  loss,  and 
pay  liberal  dividends  besides  on  the  par  value  of  stock,  which  cost  its  original 
owners  not  more  than  30  cents  on  the  dollar  in  road-making,  which  road-making 
paid  itself  enormous  profits — profits  realized  through  the  National  Credit  Mo¬ 
bilier  of  America.  These  net  earnings,  as  reported  by  the  companies,  are  over 
16  per  cent,  on  the  nominal  capital  stock  of  the  Union  Pacific  company,  or,  in 
fact,  50  per  cent,  for  the  year  1875  on  the  real  cost  of  the  stock,  while,  as  to 
the  Central  Pacific  company,  the  net  earnings  are  nearly  15  per  cent,  on  the 
nominal  capital  stock,  and  how  much  on  the  real  cost  of  the  stock  is  not  dis¬ 
closed.”  (C.  R.,  page  2,018.) 

In  1873  a  select  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  was 
appointed  under  a  resolution  to  make  inquiry  in  relation  to  the  affairs 
of  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  the  Credit  Mobilier  of 
America,  etc.,  and  they  submitted  their  report  on  the  20th  of  Feb’y  of 
that  year,  being  Nd.  78  of  the  third  session,  Forty-second  Congress. 
At  page  9  of  this  report  the  testimony  of  Mr.  I.  M.  S.  Williams,  who 
was  one  of  the  contractors,  was  given  as  follows: 

Question  —Then  what  purpose  had  you  to  propose  to  build  a  road  that 
had  already  been  built  by  the  Company  at  a  cost  to  them  of  less  than  the 
amount  mentioned  in  your  proposition? 

Answer — We  were  identical  in  interest.  The  Credit  Mobilier  and  the 
Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company  were  the  same  identical  parties;  we  were 
building  it  for  ourselves,  by  ourselves,  and  among  ourselves ;  there  was  not 
$20,000  outside  interest  in  it. 

Senator  Bayard,  in  commenting  on  this  testimony  in  his  speech 
on  the  Thurman  bill  in  the  Senate,  in  1878,  said: 

“  I  do  not  propose  to  repeat  the  sad  and  shocking  history  of  that  Credit 
Mobilier  Corporation,  and  its  complete  identification  with  the  Union  Pacific 


12 


Railroad  Company.  It  is  a  stain  that  will  never  be  wiped  out,  on  Republican 
institutions  .  .  .  Contracting  with  themselves,  the  very  corporators,  the 

trustees  into  whose  hands  this  property  of  the  American  people  had  been  so 
generously  given,  in  the  sacred  trust  and  confidence  that  they  would  use  it 
honestly  and  only  for  the  great  public  ends,  and  in  the  manner  prescribed  by 
the  acts  of  Congress,  how  did  they  use  it?  Availing  themselves  of  this 
creation  of  the  law  by  which  a  mere  corporate  title  shall  stand  instead  of  a 
real  person,  they  dealt  with  themselves,  they  dictated  their  own  profits,  they 
sold  out  the  powers  that  were  entrusted  to  them  so  generously  for  the  benefit 
of  their  fellow-countrymen,  for  their  own  aggrandizement.”  {C.  R.,  page 
2,297.) 

“  Credit  Mobilier !”  The  very  name  in  American  ears  is  the  synonym 
of  infamy.  I  cannot  leave  the  main  question  to  take  up  this,  but  in 
passing  will  simply  call  to  mind  the  famous  Oakes  Ames  corruption 
list,  brought  to  light  by  the  testimony  of  H.  S.  McComb.  At  the  head 
of  the  list  of  those  whom  Ames  had  found  willing,  for  a  consideration, 
to  assist  in  carrying  out  this  monster  scheme  of  unmitigated  dis¬ 
honesty,  was  “ Blaine ,  of  Maine ,  8,000.”  Farther  down  the  list  we 
'find  the  item,  “Colfax,  2.”  Here  is  a  short  sum  in  moral  arithmetic. 
If  two  steps  taken  in  this  slough  of  corruption  caused  Colfax  to  be 
relegated  from  his  high  political  position  to  the  permanent  shades  of 
private  life,  what  effect  should  three  thousand  have  upon  the  man 
whose  record  at  every  point  is  found  to  be  of  like  uncleanness? 

By  the  act  of  1862  these  railroad  companies  were  required  to  pay 
annually  into  the  United  States  Treasury  5  per  cent,  of  their  net  earn¬ 
ings  to  assist  the  Government  in  meeting  the  interest  on  the  bonds 
loaned  them.  Although  paying  such  heavy  dividends  on  fraudulent 
stock,  as  the  report  from  a  Congressional  committee  herein  quoted 
shows,  up  to  this  time  (1878)  they  had  not  p>aid  one  cent  of  their  net 
earnings  into  the  United  States  Treasury.  Emboldened  by  their  immense 
gains,  and  realizing  the  mighty  power  and  influence  of  abundant 
money  used  in  quarters  “where  it  would  do  the  most  good,”  they 
reached  the  climax  of  audacity  when  they  coolly  stated  to  Congress 
and  to  the  Government  officials  that  they  would  so  manage  the  road 
(unless  they  were  permitted  to  dictate  their  own  terms)  that  by  the 
time  the  Government  bonds  fell  due,  and  the  claim  of  the  Government 
against  them  matured  (which  claim  as  estimated  would  then  be  about 
$  122,000,000),  that  the  road,  if  sold,  with  all  its  appurtenances,  would 
probably  not  bring  more  than  enough  to  satisfy  the  first  mortgages — 
to  wit,  $55,000,000,  or  $27,500  per  mile,  leaving  the  Government 
minus  the  entire  amount  of  its  claim.  I  gather  this  from  the  follow¬ 
ing  statements :  Mr.  C.  P.  Huntington,  Vice-President  of  the  Central 
Pacific  Railroad,  when  before  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House, 
in  speaking  of  the  Government  debt,  and  the  first  mortgage  debt,  the 
last  equal  to  the  first  and  given  precedence  over  it  by  the  act  of  1864, 
said :  “  By  the  time  both  mature  and  become  payable  it  is  not  at  all 

likely  the  property  will  be  worth  their  aggregate  sum,  and  if  the  shrink¬ 
ing  and  settling  of  prices  should  continue  farther,  it  may  happen  that  it 
will  not  suffice  to  pay  more  than  the  first  mortgages.” 


18 


Senator  Bailey,  in  his  speech  in  the  Senate  on  March  28,  1878, 
referring  to  this  statement  of  Mr.  Huntington,  and  to  a  similar  state¬ 
ment  made  by  Mr.  Dillon,  President  of  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad 
Company,  said : 

“These  carefully  considered  statements  are  accompanied  by  equally  well 
considered  declarations,  to  the  effect  that  by  the  terms  of  the  acts  of  1862  and 
\  1864,  the  officers  of  the  two  companies  have  the  moral  as  well  as  the  legal 

right  to  distribute  the  earnings  of  the  two  roads  to  the  stockholders.  And 
although  this  course  will  certainly  lead  to  the  insolvency  of  the  corporations, 
as  they  agree,  they  very  plainly  threaten  that  unless  the  Government  will 
yield  to  their  terms,  they  will  manage  affairs  solely  with  regard  to  the  inter¬ 
ests  of  the  corporation,  and  without  regard  to  the  just  claims  of  creditors .  ” 
(C.  R.,  page  2,101.) 

Referring  to  the  situation,  Senator  Beck  said: 

“The  time  for  prompt  action  has  come,  if  Congress  does  not  intend  to  sur¬ 
render  all  the  rights  of  the  people.  These  men  almost  avow  that  they  intend  to 
violate  their  contract,  and  destroy  the  vested  rights  of  this  people  to  the  extent 
of  $122,000,000,  a  sum  larger  than  was  spent  for  the  support  of  this  Government 
from  1789  to  1812.  And  we,  as  trustees  for  the  people,  would  be  co-conspira¬ 
tors  with  them  if  we  did  not  so  change  the  law  as  to  prevent  the  consumma¬ 
tion  of  this  fraud  on  the  rights  of  the  taxpayers  of  this  country,  whose  money 
and  property  they  have  obtained,  and  whose  money  they  avow  they  intend  to 
use  for  their  own  purposes  and  never  pay  back  a  dollar  of.  Shall  we  stand 
with  our  arms  folded,  and  see  all  these  great  wrongs  perpetrated?  I  trust  we 
are  not  yet  such  abject  slaves  of  these  railroad  kings.  ”  (C.  R-,  page  2,143.) 

Such  was  the  situation  in  regard  to  these  railroads  (and  I  have 
stated  it  fully  that  those  who  read  this  paper  may  understand  it  clearly), 
when  Senator  Thurman  introduced  his  funding  bill,  through  a  desire 
to  protect,  as  far  as  possible,  the  interests  of  the  people,  and  to  compel 
these  arrogant  capitalists,  by  yearly  payments  into  a  sinking  fund,  to 
provide  in  part,  at  least,  for  the  liquidation  of  their  debt  to  the  Gov¬ 
ernment,  at  maturity.  It  was  a  just  and  wise  measure,  and  impera¬ 
tively  called  for  by  the  situation  of  affairs. 

thubman’s  funding  bill. 

The  substance  of  this  bill  was  as  follows  :  It  established  a  sinking 
fund,  in  charge  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  The  amount  of 
the  entire  charges  of  these  companies  against  the  Government  for 
transportation,  etc.(  during  the  year,  was  to  be  withheld,  and  one-half 
applied  to  the  payment  of  interest  on  United  States  bonds  loaned  to 
said  companies,  and  the  other  half  to  be  turned  into  said  sinking  fund. 
The  manner  of  computing  the  net  earnings  of  said  roads  (which  had 
been  iniquitously  evaded)  was  prescribed  and  regulated  by  this  bill. 
And  the  percentage  was  changed  as  follows :  The  Central  Pacific  Rail¬ 
road  was  required  to  pay  into  the  United  States  Treasury,  on  the  1st 
day  of  February  in  each  year,  $1,200,000,  or  so  much  thereof  as  would 
make  the  5  per  cent,  of  its  net  earnings,  added  to  the  whole  amount  of 
its  claim  for  services  rendered  the  Government,  amount  in  the  aggre¬ 
gate  to  25  per  cent,  of  the  whole  net  earnings  of  said  railroad  company 
for  the  preceding  year.  And  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company  was 
required  to  pay  into  the  United  States  Treasury  $850,000  per  annum, 
under  like  conditions.  The  receipts  thus  realized  were  to  be  placed 


14 


in  said  sinking  fund.  No  dividends  were  allowed  to  be  paid  to  any 
stockholder  until  these  annual  payments  to  the  government  had  been 
fully  made,  under  penalty  upon  each  director  voting  for,  or  any  stockholder 
receiving  such  dividend,  of  a  fine  of  $ 10,000 ,  and  imprisonment  not  exceed¬ 
ing  one  year,  for  violation  of  this  last  provision .  This  bill,  after  reference 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  came  before  the  Senate,  and  was 
debated  for  many  weeks,  in  the  spring  of  1878.  Mr.  Blaine,  as  the 
acknowledged  champion  of  the  railroads,  led  the  opposition  against 
the  interests  of  the  Government,  and  of  the  people,  and  tried,  by  every 
device  which  he  could  think  of,  to  defeat  the  bill.  He  offered  an 
amendment,  which  Senator  Thurman  declared  was  “  a  stab  at  the  very 
heart  of  the  bill,”  and  would  be  a  “  death  blow  ”  to  it  if  adopted;  that 
said  amendment,  if  inserted,  “  would  be  the  best  bargain  this  company  ever 
made ;  ”  that  it  was  “  one  of  the  things  for  which  these  railroad  com¬ 
panies  have  been  striving  for  many  years,”  but  that  it  was  the  first  time 
they  had  ventured,  or  that  “  any  one  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
had  ventured,  to  champion  such  an  idea.”  And  yet  Mr.  Blaine  vent¬ 
ured;  he  is  “  no  deadhead  in  such  enterprises  ;  ”  he  was  fighting  under 
the  eyes  and  approving  smiles  of  that  special  lobby,  and  he  saw  “chan¬ 
nels  ”  leading  to  wealth  and  future  luxury  which  the  grand  old  Roman 
from  Ohio,  ever  true  to  honor  and  to  the  best  interests  of  his  country, 
never  dreamed  of.  The  man  who  could  stand  up  under  the  transpar¬ 
ent  infamy  of  the  “  Mulligan  letters  ”  thought  little  of  the  exposure  of 
his  treachery,  and  of  his  utter  disregard  for  his  official  trusts  in  offer¬ 
ing  this  amendment,  and  in  pleading  for  its  adoption.  His  course 
on  this  occasion  shocked  the  just  sense  of  honor  and  received  the  in. 
dignant  denunciations  of  the  best  and  purest  men  in  the  American 
Senate,  of  all  parties.  To  prove  this,  and  to  show  his  position  more 
clearly,  I  give  the  following  extracts  from  the  speeches  of  Senators 
Thurman  and  Edmunds,  on  this  occasion.  Referring  to  the  amend¬ 
ment  offered  by  Mr.  Blaine,  Senator  Thurman  said : 

“  If  such  an  amendment  as  that  of  the  Senator  from  Maine  should  be  in¬ 
serted  in  this  bill,  it  would  be  the  best  bargain  this  company  ever  made.  * 

*  *  I  affirm  that  this  Government  had  better  lose  every  dollar  due 

and  all  that  is  to  come  due  by  these  companies  than  to  give  up  that  right  which 
it  has  to  alter,  amend  or  repeal  the  charter.  The  amendment  of  the  Senator 
from  Maine  is  the  worst  attack  upon  this  bill  that  could  be  made.  He  knows 
very  well  that  with  that  provision  fastened  on  to  this  bill  the  bill  will  not  only 
not  be  worth  the  paper  on  which  it  is  written,  but  it  will  be  far  worse  than 
nothing.  He  knows  that  it  would  be  a  fatal  death-blow  given  to  this  bill.  Let 
no  one  deceive  himself  about  this.  Let  no  one  imagine  that  he  can  be  a  friend 
to  the  Judiciary  Committee  bill  and  at  the  same  time  a  friend  to  the  amend¬ 
ment  of  the  Senator  from  Maine.  The  amendment  of  the  Senator  from  Maine 
is  prussic  acid  to  this  bill ;  it  can  not  survive  a  day — not  an  hour,  perhaps, 
after  that  amendment  is  adopted.  It  is  a  stab  at  the  very  heart  of  the  bill.  It 
is  as  fatal  as  any  stab  can  possibly  be.  I  hope,  therefore,  the  friends  of  this 
bill,  those  who  mean  to  make  these  companies  live  up  to  their  obligations,  and 
do  what  they  assumed  to  do  ;  those  who  mean  that  these  companies  shall  know 
that  the  Government  is  their  master,  and  that  they  are  not  the  masters  of  the 
Government — will  see  that  no  such  poison  is  taken  into  this  bill  as  the  amend¬ 
ment  of  the  Senator  from  Maine.”—  ( Congressional  Record ,  page  2,337.) 


15 


At  another  point  in  the  same  debate  Senator  Thurman  said : 

“The  pending  amendment  before  the  Senate  is  the  amendment  of  the 
Senator  from  Maine,  Mr.  Blaine.  I  have  said  that  this  bill  is  not  framed  upon 
the  idea  contained  in  that  amendment.  That  amendment  goes  upon  the  idea  that 
we  ought  to  make  an  act  that  shall  be  unchangeable  for  twenty  years.  It  goe  s 
further  than  that;  a  great  way  further  than  that.  It  goes  upon  the  idea  of 
repealing  pro  tanto  the  reserved  power  in  these  charters,  to  alter,  amend,  or 
repeal  these  acts.  Mr.  President,  one  of  the  things  for  which  these  railroad 
companies  have  been  striving  these  many  years,  has  been  to  get  rid  of  that  very 
reserved  power,  but  this  is  the  first  time  that  they  have  ventured — no,  not 
they;  I  beg  pardon  for  saying  that — this  is  the  first  time  that  anyone  in  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  has  ventured  to  champion  such  an  idea.  Their 
officers  and  lawyers,  in  their  arguments  before  the  Judiciary  Committee  last 
November  and  December,  urged  upon  us  strenuously  enough  that  we  should 
make  some  kind  of  a  bargain  with  these  companies,  and  they  would  be  ex¬ 
tremely  liberal  if  we  would  only  give  up  the  right  to  alter,  amend,  or  repeal 
their  charter.  Those  arguments  taken  in  short-hand  will  show  that  it  is  the 
cherished  object  of  these  corporations  to  get  rid  of  that  power  of  control 
which  Congress  possesses  over  them.”  ( C .  R.,  page  2,378.) 

It  11  be  seen  by  the  following  extract  from  his  speech,  that 
Senator  Edmunds  charged  point-blank  that  the  amendment  proposed 
was  in  the  interest  of  the  companies ,  and  deeply  unjust  to  the  people.  It  was 
an  effort  to  tie  the  hands  of  Congress  for  twenty-two  years,  to  prevent 
its  interfering  in  any  manner  with  said  companies  for  the  protection  of 
the  interests  of  the  Government  or  of  the  rights  of  the  people  generally. 
Senator  Edmunds,  in  his  speech  against  this  amendment  offered  by 
Mr.  Blaine,  said: 

“And  the  time  may  come,  if  the  lobby  still  continues  to  be  successful,  as 
it  has  been  hitherto,  and  these  companies,  I  will  say,  should  be  successful  in 
now  so  entangling  this  legislation,  as  to  break  it  down  by  amendments  proposed 
in  their  interest,  or  substitutes  proposed  in  their  interest,  the  time  may  come 
come  when  the  voice  of  the  just  judgment  of  the  people  will  be  heard  in  such  a 
way  that  the  management  of  this  great  corporation  will  be  placed  in  the  hands  of 
impartial  and  fair  and  safe  men,  and  that  if  your  hands  are  to  be  tied  for  twenty- 
two  years  in  respect  of  all  the  financial  administration  of  these  corporations, 
touching  not  only  the  millions  of  our  interests,  but  the  millions  of  our  other 
debts  that  we  are  bound  to  protect,  there  will  still  be  in  the  enforced  sense  of 
public  justice  from  the  people  (which  at  last  reaches  us)  a  means  of  regulating 
the  management  in  such  a  way  that  the  money  will  not  then  be  squandered.  ” 
(C.  R.,  page  2,361.) 

During  the  delivery  of  this  speech,  Mr.  Blaine  suggested  that  Mr. 
Edmunds  had  been  “fruitful  of  provisos,”  to  which  Mr.  Edmunds 
replied : 

“Mr.  President,  I  have  never  been  fruitful  of  provisos  which  tied  up  the 
hands  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  from  the  future  exercise  of  its 
sovereign  power.  The  Senator  from  Maine  is  the  original  father — there  is  no 
grandfather  and  no  collateral  relation — of  a  proposition  in  the  Legislature  of 
this  country,  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  (since  the  time  when  the 
evil  of  the  hands  of  the  States  and  of  Congress  being  tied  up  has  been  dis¬ 
covered  in  the  last  few  years),  to  provide  that  in  any  respect,  or  under  any 
circumstances,  the  hands  of  the  legislative  power  shall  be  held  off  from  the 
exercise  of  their  legitimate  and  constitutional  control  over  public  corporations.  ” 
( C .  R.,  page  2,362.) 

Senator  Edmunds  (as  will  be  observed  in  the  foregoing  extract 
from  his  speech)  referred  with  deep  significance  to  the  efforts  and  influ¬ 
ence  of  the  lobby  on  the  pending  legislation,  seeking  to  defeat  the  bill 
by  “so  entangling  this  legislation  as  to  break  it  down  by  amendments 
proposed  in  their  interest.” 

Deferring  to  the  same  persistent  and  active  influence,  Senator 


16 


Thurman  said  in  one  of  his  speeches  on  this  occasion  :  “I  have  seen 
this  Senate  Chamber  filled  with  the  railroad  lobby,  I  have  seen  the 
galleries  filled,  I  have  seen  the  corridors  filled,  I  have  seen  the  Com¬ 
mittee-room  besieged,  I  have  seen  Senators  besieged  at  their  own 
houses  by  the  railroad  lobby.”  How  plainly  these  statements  show 
the  corrupting  influences  that  were  at  work,  and  why  it  was  that  Mr. 
Blaine,  consistent  with  his  whole  record,  was  the  open  and  undisguised 
champion  of  these  railroad  companies,  and  the  active,  unscrupulous 
servant  of  this  corrupt  lobby.  But  true  to  their  country,  and  to  the 
high  trusts  confided  to  them,  Senators  Thurman  and  Edmunds,  for¬ 
getting  all  party  differences,  stood  shoulder  to  shoulder  in  this  gallant 
fight,  and  won  the  victory.  The  amendment  was  rejected,  and  the  bill 
was  passed  by  a  vote  of  40  to  20 — 16  being  absent.  The  yeas  included 
Thurman,  Edmunds,  Anthony,  Bayard,  etc.,  the  best  men  of  both 
parties.  The  nays  were  composed  of  Blaine,  Dorsey,  Kellogg,  Pad- 
dock,  etc.,  a  list  that  shows  for  itself.  The  bill  went  to  the  house,  and 
Ben  Butler  (who  is  said  to  have  been  an  attorney  in  the  employ  of 
these  railroads  while  a  member  of  Congress),  made  a  long  speech 
against  it,  but  such  was  its  clear  merits  that  it  passed,  243  to  2,  Butler 
and  Lynde  being  the  two.  And  now,  forsooth,  Blaine  and  Butler,  the 
two  Dromios  of  the  political  arena,  with  sublime  impudence,  are  posing 
serenely  before  the  American  people  as  anti-monopolists !  and  friends 
of  the  workingman !  Look  at  their  record. 

But  to  return,  such  is  the  corrupting  influence  of  this  formidable 
railroad  power,  that  although  six  years  have  elapsed,  nothing  has  been 
done  at  Washington  to  enforce  the  Thurman  bill,  and  last  spring  (1884) 
a  Committee  of  the  Senate,  of  which  Mr.  Edmunds  is  Chairman,  pre¬ 
pared  a  report  (which  has  not  yet  reached  the  Senate)  showing  that  the 
Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  up  to  that  time ,  had  not  paid  into  the 
United  States  Treasury  one  cent  of  the  25  jJer  cent,  pn'ovision  in  the  Thur¬ 
man  bill ,  and,  wholly  disregarding  the  law,  had  paid  out  since  this  act 
was  passed  over  §19,000,000  in  dividends,  notwithstanding  the  severe 
penalties  imposed  by  said  act  for  doing  so.  Such  is  the  situation  now, 
waiting  only  for  the  inauguration  of  President  Blaine  to  make  every¬ 
thing  lovely  in  the  camps  of  the  railroad  millionaires. 

Jay  Gould,  Russell  Sage,  Sidney  Dillon,  and  company,  will  smile 
with  ineffable  sweetness  over  such  a  culmination  of  their  dearest  hopes 
and  forthwith  proceed  to  put  up  bigger  jobs  than  ever  against  the 
people. 

Now,  is  there  any  intelligent  man  in  America  who  doubts  that  the 
Thurman  bill  will  be  enforced  should  Grover  Cleveland  be  elected  ?  I 
do  not  believe  that  there  is  one.  Is  there  any  such  man  who  expects 
it  to  be  enforced  should  James  G.  Blaine  be  elected  ?  Not  Senator 
Edmunds,  certainly. 

I  have  heard  it  stated  that  these  millionaire  ringsters  expended 
nearly  or  quite  a  million  of  dollars  to  prevent  the  return  of  Mr.  Thur- 


17 


man  to  the  Senate.  And  we  all  know  the  powerful  influence  which 
they  brought  to  bear  in  the  June  convention,  which  resulted  in  the 
nomination  of  their  most  obedient  servant,  Mr.  Blaine.  We  hear  that 
Mr.  Blaine’s  National  Committee  is  straightened  for  funds,  and  that 
strenuous  efforts  are  being  made  to  raise  them,  etc.  Depend  upon  it, 
this  is  all  a  blind.  Elkins  would  not  now  be  in  such  close  and  intimate 
relations  with  Blaine  if  he  were  not  the  intermediate  man,  the  “soap” 
dispenser.  These  railroad  barons  will  spend  twenty  millions>  if  neces¬ 
sary,  for  the  election  of  their  “plumed  knight.” 

In  the  degenerate  days  of  Rome,  when  the  Empire  was  hastening 
to  its  fall,  the  Praetorian  Guards  put  up  the  Emperorship  to  the  high¬ 
est  bidder — so  much  money  per  head  to  each  soldier — and  it  was  thus 
bought  by  Julian.  In  the  late  election  in  Maine  we  are  told  that 
“money  flowed  like  water,”  and  that  “at  least  fifteen  thousand  votes” 
(in  that  small  state)  “were  bought  and  paid  for”  by  the  supporters  of 
Blaine,  and  now  the  “rascal  counters”  are  being  hastened  to  Ohio  to 
influence  the  approaching  election  there.  Indeed,  it  is  an  hour  of  great 
peril  to  the  Republic;  the  fight  against  bold,  unscrupulous  corruption 
is  fully  upon  us. 

The  Chicago  Tribune ,  on  the  10th  day  of  June,  1876,  gave  the  fol¬ 
lowing  voluntary  and  truthful  testimony: 

“  Among  the  candidates  named  was  Mr.  Blaine,  and  he-  was  the  most 
popular  of  all.  He  was  bold,  aggressive,  magnetic,  and  eloquent.  But  his 
personal  rivals  had  prepared  for  his  candidacy.  Conkling  and  Morton  and 
Butler  had  made  up  his  record.  They  knew  him  as  the  people  did  not  know 
him.  They  knew  him  as  the  man  who  had  voted  for  or  failed  to  oppose  every 
subsidy  of  either  land  or  money  asked  while  he  was  in  congress.  They  knew 
him  as  the  man  who  had  voted  for  the  audacious  robbery  by  which  the  govern¬ 
ment  lien  for  its  $64,000,000  advanced  to  the  Pacific  railroads  was  changed 
from  a  first  to  a  second  mortgage.  They  knew  him  as  a  lobbyist  before  he 
entered  congress,  seeking  contracts  for  the  supply  of  arms.  They  knew  him 
in  congress,  and  while  speaker,  as  the  inside  friend  of  corporations;  con¬ 
cerned  in  legislation  to  benefit  such  corporations,  ruling  as  speaker  to  save 
their  bills,  and  as  claiming  rewards  for  his  official  actions;  as  engaged  in  sell¬ 
ing  the  worthless  bonds  of  such  corporations,  receiving  large  gratuities  there¬ 
for,  as  confessed  in  his  letters;  and  finally,  when  pecuniarily  involved,  getting 
the  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  as  it  seems  almost  certain,  to  give  him  $64,000 
cash  for  what  was  notoriously  not  worth  64,000  cents,  although  he  declares  in 
one  of  his  letters  that  he  paid  out  that  money  in  forty- eight  hours  thereafter. 
The  record  of  all  this,  in  Mr.  Blaine’s  own  handwriting,  these  personal  rivals 
of  Mr.  Blaine  have  made  public.  It  is  immaterial  how  they  became  public,  or 
through  whose  agency.  These  letters  are  all  Mr.  Blaine's — his  own  record  of 
his  own  operations  as  a  jobber  in  contracts,  in  railroad  legislation,  and  in 
wild-cat  securities ,  and  of  his  pecuniary  obligations  to  the  Pacific  Railroad 
Company. 

“  Unfortunately  there  is  not  a  speech,  nor  a  vote,  nor  a  letter  of  Mr. 
Blaine's  on  record  that  in  the  slightest  sense  can  be  tortured  into  favoring 
reform,  abolishing  useless  offices,  reducing  expenditures,  purifying  the  civil 
service,  or  cutting  off  any  of  the  abuses  which  have  stunk  in  the  nostrils  of 
the  people. 

HIs  this  the  record  of  a  reformer ?  Of  a  man  to  purify  the  administra¬ 
tion,  to  exterminate  congressional  corruption,  and  raise  the  standard  of 
political  and  official  morality  ?  The  Tribune  has  objected  to  perilling  the 
party  triumph  by  the  nomination  of  a  party  candidate  thus  loaded  down  and 
impeached,  not  by  confederates  or  democrats,  but  by  republicans.  ” 

This  testimony  is  not  from  confederates,  or  democrats,  or  inde- 


18 


pendents,  but  from  the  leading  republican  newspaper  of  the  northwest , 
acting  with  seeming  zeal  under  the  behests  of  its  party  at  the  present  time . 

It  shows  conclusively  what  Mr.  Blaine  was  in  1876.  I  have 
quoted  abundant  proofs  in  this  paper  to  show  what  he  was  in  1878, 
and  nobody  has  any  reason  to  believe  that  he  is  any  better  now.  Mr. 
Blaine  has  grown  gray,  and  grown  rich  also,  by  a  deliberate  and  per¬ 
sistent  betrayal  of  the  public  trusts  confided  to  him,  freely  selling  his 
wares  in  the  market  to  any  that  would  buy.  He  has  submitted  so 
long  and  so  freely  to  the  polluted  embraces  of  Jay  Gould,  and  Dillon, 
and  Huntington,  and  Caldwell,  and  Ames,  and  Dorsey,  and  Robeson, 
and  Elkins,  and  many  others  high  and  low,  that  it  is  too  late  now  for 
him  to  plead  chastity  to  them,  or  such  as  them,  and  he  would  not 
think  of  such  a  thing.  There  is,  therefore,  no  hope  for  reform  with 
him.  To  elect  him  president  will  be  a  deep  and  abiding  evil,  a  long 
step  toward  the  downfall  of  the  republic.  Apart  from  the  immense 
money  losses  to  the  government  through  his  ineradicable  penchant  for 
official  speculations  (and  as  president  his  active  mind  would  see  many 
tempting  “ channels”  in  which  he  could  be  “useful,”  in  this  regard), 
his  election,  with  the  brand  of  unquestionable  guilt  upon  him,  would 
be  in  effect  to  excuse  bribery  and  to  dignify  corruption.  It  would 
stimulate  and  encourage  treachery  in  office  of  the  boldest  character, 
and  tend  to  the  complete  subversion  of  public  interests  to  private  ends. 
The  wily  lobbyist,  the  Oakes  Ames  sort  of  man,  engaged  in  placing 
money  “where  it  will  do  the  most  good,”  would  then  have  an  unanswer¬ 
able  argument  with  which  to  attack  and  overcome  the  otherwise  honest 
impulses  of  aspiring  legislators  and  of  representatives  of  the  people  in 
every  kind  of  official  position :  “Do  you  want  wealth  ?  do  you  want 
public  honor  ?  do  you  want  high  official  position  ?  Look  at  Blaine ;  remem¬ 
ber  his  record.  You  cannot  do  any  worse  than  he  did.  ”  Are  the  honest, 
intelligent  men  of  the  republican  party  ready  to  strike  such  a  cruel 
blow  as  this  against  the  good  name  and  dearest  interests  of  their 
country  ?  Will  they  permit  the  prejudices  engendered  by  party  zeal 
to  so  stultify  and  enthral  them  as  not  to  examine  the  facts  closely  and 
faithfully  for  themselves  ?  Surely  we  are  all  equally  interested  and 
desirous  for  political  decency,  honesty,  and  good  government.  Every 
citizen  in  this  matter  is  the  peer  and  equal  of  any  and  of  all,  and  to 
each  attaches  the  equal  and  just  responsibility  of  upholding  to  the 
extent  of  his  power  and  influence  the  moral  dignity  and  purity  of  his 
government.  Thousands  of  the  best  and  purest  men  in  the  repub¬ 
lican  party  have  already  come  out  boldly  in  this  matter,  not  for  party, 
but  for  honesty  and  decency  and  good  government,  in  spite  of  party. 
It  is  the  duty  of  true  men  everywhere  to  examine  this  question  well 
for  themselves  and  to  act  accordingly.  The  solemn  warnings  of  Wash¬ 
ington  in  regard  to  the  dangers  of  party  spirit  are  proving  prophetic; 
it  is  the  one  weak  point  in  our  form  of  government,  and  its  test  is  now 
fully  upon  us;  honest  men  must  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder,  as  did 


19 


Thurman  and  Edmunds  and  Bayard  and  Anti 
1878.  Nothing  but  the  intelligence,  sturdy  inj 
mined  adherence  to  principle — honest  and  pure- 
people  of  all  parties  can  save  us  from  the  demor£ 
ing  infamy  which  threatens  us. 

Mr.  Blaine  is  the  man  with  an  “itching  palm”' 
men  of  the  present  day ;  his  plumes  are  the  funeral 
honor — dead  and  buried  long  ago.  To  elect  him  prl 
expunge  his  guilt,  nor  remove  one  single  indelible  tattl 
tensely  corrupt  record.  The  man  would  not  be  purified  tnei 
the  party  which  supports  him  would  be  lowered  to  his  standard,  and" 
the  office  which  Washington  filled  degraded  by  the  act.  It  is  not , 
therefore,  J.  G.  Blaine  that  is  on  trial  now,  but  the  people  of  this 
country. 

Cover  it  with  words,  and  specious  arguments,  and  side  issues,  as 
you  may,  there  is  no  disguising  the  plain,  undeniable  fact,  which  stares 
every  intelligent  man  in  the  face,  that  the  presidential  contest  is  nar¬ 
rowed  down  to  the  one  great  distinguishing  point  of  difference  between 
the  two  candidates,  as  shown  by  the  record  of  each,  and  which  defines 
the  issue  sharp  and  clear — honesty  versus  corruption.  Cleveland,  by 
his  clear  head,  brave  heart,  sterling  integrity  and  untiring  faithfulness 
in  the  interests  of  the  people,  has  made  his  name  “the  synonym  of 
political  courage,  and  honesty,  and  administrative  reform.”  Blaine, 
as  stated  by  a  committee  and  select  gathering  of  a  number  of  the  pur¬ 
est  and  best  men  of  the  republican  party,  “is  unworthy  of  respect  and 
confidence — he  has  traded  upon  his  official  trust  for  his  pecuniary 
gain,  and  is  a  representative  of  men,  methods  and  conduct  which  the 
public  conscience  condemns,  and  which  illustrate  the  very  evils  that 
honest  men  would  reform.” 

Against  the  dark  background  of  Blaine’s  undoubted  perfidy,  the 
official  record  of  Gov.  Cleveland  stands  as  a  pillar  of  light — clear, 
clean-cut,  immaculate.  Look  at  it !  Not  a  whisper  against  his  official 
integrity,  not  a  doubt  as  to  his  uncompromising  honesty  and  faithfulness 
in  every  official  trust  which  he  has  held.  Malice  itself  is  silenced  here ! 

Look  on  this  picture,  then  on  that;  which  is  preferable?  The 
real  question  is  certainly  reduced  to  this,  and  only  this.  The  presen¬ 
tation  to  the  whole  people  of  this  country  now  is,  behold,  there  is  set 
before  you  this  day  good  and  evil,  honest  government  or  gigantic  cor¬ 
ruption  ;  which  shall  we  have  ? 


